Search form

You are here

Head movement

Found this video really interesting as it offers a different perspective on self defence from a sporting martial arts angle.

How important do you guys feel head movement is?

Does the guy in the video make a good point? He seems to back up what he's getting at VERY well.

How would this sort of movement fit in with Iain's approach to kata as, as I understand it, bobbing and weaving is not stressed and instead relies more on gripping, positioning and unbalancing to avoid punches landing? Or would the two approachs be opposed to one another?

To move during a fight is a thing you should do automatically so it is not taught in Kata.

But isn't that a little bit like saying "Punching in a fight should be automatic so is not taught in kata"?

Escaping should be automatic but Iain still teaches it.

The kind of head movement that guy shows isn't automatic at all IMHO. That is a taught and learnt response to stimulus. No one moves like that, with that degree of reliable skill, without training to some degree.

you are right, you have to train to move in an altercation, like you have to train to punch and to escape. But again, Kata was made by fighters for fighters. It doesn't teach you evasive head movements, it also doesn't teach escapes, it also does'nt teach you how to punch hard. That are skills you simply not get when only doing Kata. Kata is not the solution to all problems it is a training tool for certain purposes.

What that demonstration shows pretty good is how hard it is to hit a small moving target. Therefore you find methods in Kata to maximize your own hitting accuracy.

You don't need these type of movements like the guy in the video shows to make it hard for someone else to hit your head. You simply have to move. That's what I wanted to say.

This guy does have some excellent defensive movement and footwork and is doubtless a great sport fighter (possibly applied too) but I feel it is important to point out that his test is rather artificial. The following must be considered when relating this kind of thing to self defence.

1. The range involved is pre-set at long boxing range.

2. The attacks used are limited to head punches with large boxing gloves so there is no gripping or grappling to inhibit the defender's ability to dodge and weave.

3. The defender is only defending and so can backpedal as much as he likes without having to risk entering or staying in attack range to get his own shots off or compromising his defence in doing so. It also takes place in a wide open space.

4. The attackers are all random guys off the street who appear to have been picked because they look reasonably fit and capable but none of them are either trained fighters or hardened thugs.

5. The test is done in a friendly, co-operative style with no real aggression and plenty of time for both parties to psyche in to the roles. The attacker is free to stop at any time.

6. The defender does not try to escape.

So basically this is a great drill for isolating evasive motion in sport fighting but is far removed from the concerns of self defence. The fact that traditional kata does not have this kind of evasive work in it is because the kind of altercation it addresses does not leave real room to apply such methods.

Of course, if a "fight" did wind up at this kind of range then the skills would still be applicable but only really in the instant before fleeing or trying to reassert dominance.

There are actually street entertainers in Japan called nagurareya (Translates as "punched for a living") who do this kind of thing for money. Usually ex pro or amateur boxers they charge about 2000yen (£13.50) for a minuite and will wear a full head guard and gloves while the person punching also wears oversized gloves. I spent an afternoon observing one once as he plied his trade and 99% of the time he just danced around for the minuite while random members of the public swung hoplessly at thin air. As soon as someone who clearly knows what he is doing stepped up the guy cut the fight short and just handed his money back, saying well done!

Balanced evasive movement is implied in various kata to one degree or another, leaning (bobbing, weaving) much less so.

In order to move your upper torso and head your lower body has to become relatively static. The classic exploit of this fact is found in the combination, "jab high, shoot low".

The skill is useful but compromising your balance and creating openings (lower body) is risky. Hence the only fighting art that emphasizes this skill is the one where all the disadvantages are mooted by the rules.

Should we train it? IMO yes, but as a supplemental or foundational skill. Something to keep a hand in but essentially to be left behind when better methods are mastered.

Loved that video! Very well presented and a skilful demonstration. Very nice!

To begin with, I have to say I have a big issue with the notion of “street fighting”. I feel the term demonstrates a failure to grasp things of vital importance. It is a notion where “fighting” and “self-protection” get mashed together so context is dangerously underplayed and legalities are recklessly ignored.

I know “street fighting” is a commonly used term (I’ve used it myself in the past) so it’s hard to be too critical; but, as a general point, I think there seriously needs to be a movement to get rid of that term from our lexicon and to clarify thinking around the related issues. As it happens, “So you want to be a good street-fighter?” is the title of the next podcast so I’ll not go into too much detail here. Anyhow, back to what is actually demonstrated.

It’s a great demonstration of an isolated skill; which the presenter clarifies at the end of the video. It’s one way not to get hit, but there are many other ways which can be tactically sounder (if circumstances permit a choice) i.e. pre-empt and flee, knock them out, be proactive, control limbs, get off their attack line while keeping them on yours, etc. However, when a shot is coming in, is good head movement an effective way not to get hit? It sure is! As is demonstrated very nicely in the clip.

PASmith wrote:

How important do you guys feel head movement is?

Of vital importance for fighting. Of much less importance for the physical side of self-protection.

PASmith wrote:

How would this sort of movement fit in with Iain's approach to kata as, as I understand it, bobbing and weaving is not stressed and instead relies more on gripping, positioning and unbalancing to avoid punches landing? Or would the two approaches be opposed to one another?

The key point is that the methodology of kata is not intended for “fighting” (a consensual combative exchange where the aim is to win) but for the physical side of self-protection (a non-consensual combative exchange where the aim is to avoid harm in accordance with the law of the land). What I feel people often fail to grasp is that these types of exchange are different and have differing objectives. They therefore require the employment of differing tactics in order to best ensure their differing objectives is most effectively met. The selection of the correct tactics will therefore determine which techniques one would chose to employ in the execution of those tactics.

Bobbing, weaving, feinting, back and forth footwork etc, are very important when it comes to achieving the objective of a fight: They are of far less important when it comes to achieving the objective of the physical side of self-protection. I would therefore not state that “the two approaches are opposed to one another”, but I would say that context dictates all and therefore what a person emphasises in a given context should be determined by that context.

As regards head movement generally, I do think this is something that the eastern arts do not teach as well as western boxing does. In my own training and teaching head movement is practised (for the fighting side of practise) and that is almost entirely from my training with boxers and kick-boxers – or karateka who also have experience of boxing / kick-boxing – as opposed to my “pure” karate training.

If you were to look how the footwork employed by karateka has evolved over the last forty years or so, we can see a marked shift from the “flat footed shuffling back and forth” of the 60s and 70s, to “on the balls of the feet, light and lively” footwork of today. This shift is because of the influence and effectiveness of the footwork in western boxing (for fighting).

Just as western boxing has had a massive influence on the footwork employed by modern karateka – to the point where such footwork is now accepted as “traditional” by the karate mainstream – I’m sure the same will happen with body and head movement too.

In short: great video, vital fighting skill, less relevant self-protection skill, something that should be practised, and I’m sure that absolutely everyone will practise it in a few decades as nothing stands still.

Of vital importance for fighting. Of much less importance for the physical side of self-protection.

The thing is though Iain...while I take your point and totally agree with correctly applying what you do to the right context...IMHO what that guy was avoiding was pretty much what you'd have to avoid (at least at the start) in the a lot of street attacks. Especially if your attacker is a young male. A self defence "encounter" might well include weapons, grappling, clinches, gouges etc but for the most part it'll be some aggressive muppet winging punches at your face until he stops or you make him stop. Go into any city centre on a Saturday night and that's what you'll.

Could this be something that concievably fits into self protection when the longer range is in play and grips, limb control etc haven't or even can't be established?

The thing is though Iain...while I take your point and totally agree with correctly applying what you do to the right context...IMHO what that guy was avoiding was pretty much what you'd have to avoid (at least at the start) in the a lot of street attacks.

I’d disagree there as they square off and start to “fight”. Once started, he make a great job of backing off and maintaining a solid fighting distance. Good fighting stuff, but it would not transpose well to physical self-protection where it’s infinitely more likely that the range will be closer to begin with and the explosive violence associated with crime does not facilitate the easy maintenance of a range. Squaring off to fight is key part of “consensual fighting”, but it’s not key part of physical self-protection. The violence associated with self-protection starts very differently and I’ll come to that in a minute.

PASmith wrote:

A self defence "encounter" might well include weapons, grappling, clinches, gouges etc but for the most part it'll be some aggressive muppet winging punches at your face until he stops or you make him stop. Go into any city centre on a Saturday night and that's what you'll.

What we often do see in pubs and clubs up and down this green and pleasant land is drunk people fighting, but that’s not self-protection. A drunken “street fight” is an illegal and pretty stupid activity to get involved in. If someone was to square off and then start fighting then “win or lose” they are on the wrong side of the law. To treat self-protection as being the same as a fight is bad tactically and very problematic legally.

For physical self-protection (as distinct from a consensual fight) the most likely way for it to start is dialogue or ambush; either way there will be no squaring off at fighting distance. The enemy is very unlikely to put up his hands and start swinging shots as is shown in the clip. They don’t want a fight; they want to get whatever it is they want as simply as possible. It’s the different nature of “non-consensual violence” and a “square go” that make head movement at a distance of far less importance for the former than it is for the latter. Not totally irrelavent, but of less importance.

There is much more that separates physical self-protection and fighting than just a lack of rules, weapons, multiples, etc. They are fundamentally different beasts with differing objectives. A person can be a great fighter and be hopeless at protecting themselves. Conversely a person could be very good at protecting themselves, but a poor fighter. Whilst there is some cross over (i.e. a good punch is a good punch), the difference in objectives, tactics, choice of technique, etc make them very different. One-on-one fighting skills are not an ideal solution for self-protection and we can’t treat them as being one and the same or view than as having directly interchangeable methodologies.

So while head movement is vital for fighting, I believe it to be of far less importance for self-protection for the reasons stated. It’s primarily a fighting skill as opposed to a self-protection skill. Different kinds of “conflict” require differing solutions.

All the best,

Iain

PS This thread it proving useful as I sort out next month’s podcast :-)

he is also universally moving backwards as he bobs and weaves. Hardly the best way to establish and maintain dominance so that you can escape. I agree that training this might help you to avoid the first punch after missing your chance to br premptive, but after that its forwards all the way for me...